Proving Q is Transitive in Mendelson's Topology

  • Thread starter Thread starter philosophking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relations
philosophking
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Hey everyone,

I'm working through the first chapter of Mendelson's Topology right now and ran into this question:

Let P be a subset of real numbers R such that i) 1 is in P, 2) if a,b are in P then a+b are in P, and 3) for each x in R, either x is in P, x=0, or -x is in P. Define Q= {(a,b) such that (a,b) is in R x R and a-b is in P}. Prove that Q is transitive.

The only reason I'm unsure about this is because my proof was very short and didn't involve 2 of the properties. This is what i said:

To prove Q is transitive, we prove that if aRb and bRc then aRc. Suppose aRb and bRc, then by definition of Q a-b is in P and b-c is in P (and hence in Q). According to property 2 then, (a-b)+(b-c) is in P, or a-c is in P and hence Q, so Q is transitive.

See why I'm confused? Did I miss something?

Thanks for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see why you're confused, everything is fine. Note that when you say, "a - c is in P and hence Q" what you really mean is that "a - c is in P and hence (a, c) is in Q".
 
Oh right, thanks. I was confused because they gave a few unnecessary properties, and i really didn't understand it.
 
This collection of properties is an important one -- the book presumably will either show or ask you to show other interesting properties that such a set P, and relation Q, would have.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top